(b) oral translation or oral summary of essential documents?
|
Austria
|
There is no provision that the oral translation of oral summary must be recorded. In general, there is no such recording, neither in writing nor by audio or video tape.
|
Belgium
|
(see above the general answer to question 4)
|
Bulgaria
|
The national law requires that the occurrence of oral translation or oral summary of essential documents shall be noted in accordance with the recording procedure in Bulgaria. As I stated above however, since there is no information about cases where translations were in practice substituted by their oral equivalents, I am not able to report how recording of oral translation or oral summary of essential documents is practically made in Bulgaria.
|
Croatia
|
See above under b)
|
Cyprus
|
According to Article 8 (c) of the Law that provides for the Interpretation and Translation during the Criminal Proceedings (L. 18(I)/2014),
(c) when an oral translation or/and oral summary of essential documents has been provided or/and
the competent authority records the event in the relevant file or/and the minutes of the procedure
|
Czech Republic
|
The use of oral translated shall be recorded.
|
Estonia
|
Providing an oral translation or summary is a procedural act within the meaning of CCP, and a report on that must be prepared under § 146 of CCP.
|
Finland
|
See answer above.
|
France
|
Strictly speaking there are no provisions about that but the general principle above mentioned should apply.
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
Under Article 238A of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedures, as replaced by Law 4236/2014 and practice, when a suspected or accused person has been subject to questioning with the assistance of an oral translation or an oral summary of essential documents a report is written or a reference is made in the report written by the competent each time authority.
|
Hungary
|
During questionings or hearings the interpreter may translate orally any document.
|
Ireland
|
It is not the practice to record consultations between lawyers, clients and translators when the translator is translating written documents.
|
Italy
|
In practice, only if the defence accept it instead of written translation
|
Latvia
|
Interpreter is informed about the rights and duties of an interpreter, as well as the liability regarding false translation or a refusal to translate. Interpreter confirms his or her awareness with a signature in a separate document or in protocol.
|
Lithuania
|
As mentioned above, it is being recorded during the court hearings only.
|
Luxembourg
|
No record keeping of such translation
|
Malta
|
No information
|
Poland
|
Oral translation or oral summary of essential documents always need to be fixed in separate minutes during criminal proceedings. Minutes are fundamental documents and they are sources of proofs. (Such minutes are always written in Polish). Oral translations or oral summaries could be also recorded by using devices recording picture and sound as services assisting the questioning of suspects or accused persons or hearing of witnesses who speak foreign language. Expressed in foreign languages words of suspects, accused persons or for instance witnesses should be recorded, but it isn’t a rule in practice. General norms in this matter might be derived from the Article 147 of CCP (adequately from its § 1 and § 2). Such recordings are attachments to the minutes of the procedural activities with participation of a suspect or an accused (recordings are subsidiary to minutes). I have no concrete data concerning the practice in this field.
|
Portugal
|
When the defence requests. In these cases, it is registered in the judicial process that there was intervention of a translator.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
Sec 28 para 5 CCP instead of written translation it is permitted to interpret the document or its essential content without prejudice to the fairness of the proceeding. It is recorded in the Minutes of the proceeding whether complete document or its parts were translated.
|
Slovenia
|
It is unclear whether there should be any record of oral translation or oral summary of essential documents.
In practice, the essential documents are translated in written form.
|
Spain
|
There is no legal obligation to record this. The law says that the judge « may » order the recording.
|
Sweden
|
When oral translation or summary has been made, this should be noted by using the existing recording procedures.
|
The Netherlands
|
The statements translated for the suspect are not reported.
|
UK
|
England and Wales
As above.
|
Scotland
Reg 14 of the 2014 Regulations provides that the clerk of court must make a record of the fact that an oral translation or oral summary of an essential document is provided.
|
Northern Ireland
Police station -recorded on custody record that translated copy key documents provided, client required to sign to acknowledge receipt
|
(c) waiver of the right to translation?
|
Austria
|
The waiver of the right to translation must be recorded in writing.
|
Belgium
|
If the concerned person accepts to be interrogated and to answer in the language of the proceedings, (s)he may not claim afterwards that the procedure was not fair.
|
Bulgaria
|
The national law requires that the occurrence of waiver of the right to translation shall be noted in accordance with the recording procedure in Bulgaria. In practice this is always done without any exceptions whatsoever.
|
Croatia
|
See under c)
|
Cyprus
|
According to Article 8 (d) of the Law that provides for the Interpretation and Translation during the Criminal Proceedings (L. 18(I)/2014),
(d) when a person has waived the right to translation,
the competent authority records the event in the relevant file or/and the minutes of the procedure
|
Czech Republic
|
Any waiver shall be recorded.
|
Estonia
|
Not applicable -- see question 2 f above.
|
Finland
|
See answer above.
|
France
|
A record must be kept about that (Circulaire du 31 octobre 2013, page 5).
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
Under Article 238A of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedures, as replaced by Law 4236/2014 and practice, when a person has waived the right to translation a report is written or a reference is made in the report written by the competent each time authority.
|
Hungary
|
One may waive the right of interpretation and the right of translation. One may not revoke the waiver but may ask for an interpreter or translation.
|
Ireland
|
A competent police investigator would if there were doubts about the adequacy or competence of the suspect in English insist on having the suspect confirm at the beginning of an interview and on audio-visual tape that they are happy to proceed in English notwithstanding that a translator in their own language could be procured. Equally in Court if a judge was of the view that there was an issue concerning translation he would as a matter of prudence offer to adjourn the proceedings to enable a translator be brought to the Court and this would be recorded on a digital audio recording.
|
Italy
|
No, see question a)
|
Latvia
|
Right to translation can’t be waived.
|
Lithuania
|
No possibility to wave the right to translation.
|
Luxembourg
|
No record keeping of such translation
|
Malta
|
Minuted in proceedings
|
Poland
|
In Poland a suspect or an accused who doesn’t speak Polish language cannot waive the right to interpretation or translation.
|
Portugal
|
When the suspected or accused person understands clearly the Portuguese language.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
Should the accused decide to waive the right to translation, the waiver is recorded in the Minutes of proceeding.
|
Slovenia
|
The right to translation can be waived by the suspect of accused under the condition that the suspect or accused understands the language of the procedure and that he/she waives this right in written. It is unclear under the law whether this waiver can be revoked.
|
Spain
|
Recorded in writing, not by audiovisual means.
|
Sweden
|
As mentioned under Question 2(f) there is no practice of waiving the right in this regard.
|
The Netherlands
|
The Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain a provision about the way in which the right to an interpreter or a translator should be relinquished in situations of interrogation. In practice this means that, when the suspect states that he has a (thorough) command of the Dutch language, no interpreter will be engaged for the interrogation. When a suspect who actually has a little command of the Dutch language - and might thus miss nuances pertaining to relevant criminal law in the questions of the police or cannot state his views adequately - and is able to manage, nothing will be included in the report as to the extent of the considerations to engage an interpreter or as to whether the right to an interpreter has been waived.
|
UK
|
England and Wales
In the police station, a note or record of the waiver by a suspect of the right to translation is recorded in a computer generated document called a ‘Custody Record’. A custody record is created for all persons detained and questioned in a police station whether or not they are arrested. The custody record is stored electronically. The relevant entries on the custody record would be made by the custody officer. The custody record of a person detained or questioned at a police station is disclosed (subject to a relevance test) to a defendant at trial.
Similarly, the waiver of a right to translation is recorded on the court record, which is kept with the court.
|
Scotland
Reg 14 of the 2014 Regulations provides that the clerk of court must record the fact that a waiver has been given by a person who is the subject of criminal proceedings.
|
Northern Ireland
Noted in court record or custody record
|
